Why 7 days for Creation?

E=mc squared works out exactly

Okay, provide proof that the theories of evolution is fake.

I'd say he sounds more like the unlamented Quahog than the SnaKKKe. If he starts talking about the British Royal Family hunting naked teenagers through the Royal Woods to their death, we'll know for sure.

The theories of evolution ARE fake.

Evolutionists came with the Neo-Darwinian theory (1970s) where they changed the whole theory but kept the name title and the name of the doctrines.

https://able2know.org/topic/110967-14#post-6491841

I do have an idea, I call Relative Relativity. It's difficult to explain the apparent changes in a moving object, such as its evident change in mass or length, slowing of its clock, etc; explained by complex math but very unsatisfying to the intuition

Now, what follows is a gross oversimplification of my proposal, but suppose we're underestimating its velocity. For instance when it's appears to have neared c, its mass seems to have become enormous, its length looks as if shrunk to near zero, and its clock appears to have stopped. So suppose its velocity [and that of light] is actually much greater but, owing to our present inability to resolve certain paradoxes and contradictions involving time-at-a-distance we underestimate; actually the object is goin' many, many times v

Thus the observation, when we place a bigger object in its path, that it has 'way more destructive power than we'd otherwise expect. The reason it seems shorter, is that the light from the front and back of the speeding chunk is reaching us at the same instant; and we see its clock as stopped 'cause it's reaching its destination much quicker than we realize

Thus the observation, when we place a bigger object in its path, that it has 'way more destructive power than we'd otherwise expect. The reason it seems shorter, is that the light from the front and back of the speeding chunk is reaching us at the same instant; and we see its clock as stopped 'cause it's reaching its destination much quicker than we realize

I've proposed this at web sites more in the scientific realm, and though disagreeing, they understand what I'm sayin'. Still, I haven't been controverted. I think the main reason my theory seems overly convoluted and unlikely, is that it's rejected by 'common sense,' but then so is Al's

Actually when you consider it carefully you might find it very simple, in agreement with intuition, and neatly resolving, eg, the Twin Paradox as well as other still controversial aspects of present theory

The more I red this Camleon guy, the more I see what Monterey's been aying. Quahog never engaged in any kind of intelligent reasoning, just mindless gainsay. This guys the very same. (I went back to find a Quahog piece and its amazing the similarities).
I guess these cowards are only good for one song and when they get found out by a number of people, they head for the cover of anonymity, (t least till they come up with a new member name.

I guess Ill get no sense from Cameron. He will just keep screaming his religiou beliefs.

No biggy.

That the flow of time is constant is seemingly obvious and this has been the prevailing view for almost all of human history.

We can see from the graph that at “low” speeds there is only a small change in time dilation (i.e. the flow of time doesn't change very much), but at speeds over about 75% of the speed of light the effect of time dilation is quite dramatic. Even at the "low speed" of 10% of the speed of light (300,000 km per second, or 186,300 miles per second) our clocks would slow down by only around 1%, but if we travel at 95% of the speed of light time will slow down to about one-third of that measured by a stationary observer. Note that at zero percent of the speed of light there is no time dilation at all. Also, while we can get as close to the speed of light as our technology allows, it's impossible to actually reach a speed of 100% of the speed of light. So, when we move, at whatever speed, time slows down relative to a stationary observer. But note that, for example, the occupants of a rocket travelling at very high speeds would still experience time passing normally. However, if they could see out to an Earth-bound clock it would appear, to them, to be running too quickly. If an Earth-bound observer could see a clock inside the rocket it would appear to be running too slowly. This is why the theory is called "relativity", it is because time is relative to whoever is observing it at a particular speed.

OK, no explanation here but the difficulty to explain the mechanism involved in time dilatation.

Seriously, do you really understand what this dude said?....he is assuming, not so explaining

So far, no observation at all suggest that such increasing of mass can happen with a macroscopic body. So, those ideas that it will also happen with a spaceship or a planet, star or a galaxy, such is lunacies, ideas invented by idiots

...space expansion -proved false by many scientists...

...their sizes don't show any increase in their mass

Why this idiot [Dale] has to place a bigger object in the path of the moving body

...he says that we "see its clock"...What the hell is he talking about?

In order to do so, [be placed ahead of a rapidly-moving object] the body used for obstruction must reach the same speed or faster speed than light in order to be in front of the other moving body.

..also claims that he will be able to see the clock of the moving object to stop, no more "appearing to stop" but now it will stop